You have it exactly backwards.

Anyone suggesting Soylent is safe with arguments like "glucose is glucose" and "it has the right macronutrient ratios" is spouting pseudo-science.

If you have insufficient evidence that something is safe and a strong anecdote suggesting otherwise the logical option is to abstain.

Attempting to bring science into the decision making process when the science has not been done is pseudo-science!

There is still so much science to do related to food, we just do not have a good grasp of all the nutrients your body needs and what allows you to absorb those nutrients the best. One form of protein from a plant can have completely different absorption rates than that of protein from a cow, its a complete crapshoot to try and blaze a trail with processed staple food products due to the lack of understanding we have of nutrition, and its going to take decades of research to even start to unravel the mysteries of the human bodies digestion system.

> You have it exactly backwards.

I would call either argument pseudo-science, but only one was presented here and it's the one I responded to.

I have to agree. I'm not saying that people on liquid diets don't have digestion problems, but the liquid diet alone likely didn't cause it.

Even if you eat no food, you'll still have bowel movements as your intestines shed cells and mucus. If you have a colostomy done (intestines no longer connect to your rectum) you'll still pass small small amounts of stool out the normal way (anus).

Your bowels are muscle. Like any muscle, if it doesn't get used much, it wastes. Just because you're passing some stool, doesn't mean you're in good digestive shape, no more than an irregular heartbeat is healthy "because at least the heart is beating"

What does "good digestive shape" even mean? I've never heard of "digestive muscle wasting" in any of the medical literature. Your digestive muscles are smooth muscle (different from the heart) that are autonomically innervated (more than just food stimulates them).

The fact that people have gone on extended fasts and then broke them without much trouble suggests a "breakdown" of digestive function is a weak argument.

I would say that a change in the biome of the digestive tract is probably more responsible for any digestive upset after breaking a fast than "muscle breakdown".

Its not quite what was described but refeeding syndrome is an interesting somewhat related thing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC390152/

He just told you what he lived through, and you're asking for a citation?

Never change, HN.

A throwaway account gave us a wholly unsupported anecdote. This isn't gospel and it's not taboo to ask for some scientific support.

Even if the anecdotes are 100% true, they have no causative evidence.

Your dismissive attitude discounts:

1. People lie.

2. People believe things to be true that are not, in fact, true.

"Somone would to that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?"

I grew up with AOL chatrooms. I will believe whatever someone presents about themselves up to the point at which it leave the magic circle of the internet.

"Not putting solid food into your system for long periods of time will destroy your ability to digest solid food when you start refeeding"

That is an unscientific statement based on no citation.

Top it off, I have personally lived of Soylent for a year. I go out to eat only a couple times a month and I do not die from horrendous suffering everytime. In fact, nothing changes.

"Your statement is unscientific because anecdotally I've had no problems with it"

Where's your citation backing up your suggestion that it's safe?

One counterexample is enough to contradict the "will destroy" claim in the grandparent.

"Smoking will destroy your lungs"

Gonna give me a counterexample there too?

Dear down voters: it should be obvious that just because smoking is not literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs, and you can find plenty of counter examples, it's still a very good idea to warn people that "smoking will destroy your lungs".

And it would have been a good idea to do that back in the 50s when doctors were calling it safe without the science to back up their claims. "You have no evidence" is what you say to justify avoiding something suspect, not what you say to justify consuming it!

Pretty sure smoking is literally guaranteed to destroy your lungs.

If you find a long-term consistent cigarette smoker with no lung damage, I believe you have a medical miracle on your hands.

"Destroy" does not mean the same thing as "damage".

Destroy = something big enough ruin your quality of life.

Sure, counterexample: my grandfather. Hyperbolic claims like "it will destroy your lungs" are counterproductive in the long run; far better to give a measured, accurate description of the actual level of danger.

Anecdata... strawman... no citations of your own despite requirements for same... somethingsomething 'unscientific'?

The point is that one unsubstantiated anecdote cancels out the other. Why is the first comment okay but this one isn't? You can't have it both ways.

The comment I responded to was mockingly talking about dying with the original wasn't. It was being smarmy when the original was talking cleanly. Abusing someone for lack of science when you're being snarky is a footgun.

My point is that if you are chiding someone for a lack of quality, you shouldn't use even less quality to do so.

Look I get it, but there are citations. https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/3orq9s/is_diarrhea...

No he told us about something he claimed to see at a place. A lot of people say the same thing about UFOs.